Liberals Put Yet Another Feather In Their Fascist Cap In Ouster Of Jill Abramson For The Crime Of Daring To Speak The Truth

It was only yesterday that I published the article, “America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him.” I pointed out in that article how journalists had been personally destroyed for trying to report the truth. I mentioned some names, such as Sharyl Attkisson – award-winning investigative journalist who resigned in despair when CBS refused to air her stories after praising her for the same tough investigative reporting when the president happened to be a Republican. Having resigned, she was free to speak the truth: namely, the truth that a fascist propaganda-press WILL NOT report the truth about Obama that they eagerly drooled to report about Bush. And I mentioned a few courageous journalists – from the New York Times of all places – who dared to call a spade a spade and decry this fascist administration and its destruction on the 1st Amendment.

One of those New York Times journalists that I named yesterday was Jill Abramson.

Abramson pointed out that Barack Obama was – despite all of his arrogant lies to the contrary – the most secretive president she had ever encountered in a career of covering presidents that dated back to the Reagan years. She pointed out that Obama was in fact THE most destructive president of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in all of American history.

And now she’s gone, purged the way ALL who in any way defy the left get purged. Because the left is now pathologically fascist. And the urge to purge is the hallmark of fascism.

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Allow me to simply state as a FACT that THIS is why Jill Abramson is gone.

Now read the article detailing her ouster and tell me where you see the real reason Abramson was purged:

The New York Times abruptly ousted its executive editor, Jill Abramson, Wednesday, citing “management” issues in the newsroom and sparking a firestorm of speculation across the media industry.

Managing editor Dean Baquet was appointed as her successor, making him the paper’s first African-American newsroom leader. Abramson and Baquet were among the top trending topics on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, reflecting the intense interest the paper still generates among online readers.

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

The company declined to elaborate on why Abramson, 60, left the company where she had worked for 17 years so suddenly. She was so devoted to The Times that she has a tattoo of the letter “T,” signifying her ties the paper.

In an e-mail, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of The New York Times Co., “made the decision because he believed that new leadership would improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom.”

“You will understand that there is nothing more that I want to say about this,” Sulzberger told the newsroom Wednesday afternoon, according to a Times report. “We had an issue with management in the newsroom. And that’s what’s at the heart of this issue.”

Widely respected for her journalistic skills, Abramson made history as the paper’s first female editor when she was promoted to the job in 2011. She has a reputation for a hard-charging, and at times, prickly personality.

Under her tenure, the paper had to deal with a series of high-profile defections by writers and editors — celebrated blogger Nate Silver to ESPN being the most cited example — who left for competitors and media start-ups.

But she is credited with guiding the organization at a time of deep changes, including the paper’s aggressive shift toward digital journalism and its decision to charge readers for digital content. Like other digital-first media organizations, its reporters are now tasked to write quickly online and update as stories develop, but they continue to produce high-quality enterprise stories and deeply reported features on multiple platforms, which allow the company to grow its circulation revenue.

“I’ve loved my run at The Times,” Abramson said in a statement. “We successfully blazed trails on the digital frontier, and we have come so far in inventing new forms of story-telling. Our masthead became half female for the first time, and so many great women hold important newsroom positions.”

Abramson was not immediately reachable for comment, and the company said she was “no longer here.”

Baquet, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who previously worked as editor of The Los Angeles Times, has been managing editor at the Times since September 2011 and was seen as an eventual successor to Abramson.

A native New Orleanian, Baquet is well-liked in the newsroom for his engaging personality and easy rapport with staffers. “I think he’s the perfect choice,” said Jim Amoss, editor of The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, who’s been friends with Baquet for decades. “As a manager, he’s a rare combination of inspiring, empathetic and even-keeled. He know instinctively how to respond journalistically to news. The newsroom will naturally gravitate toward him.”

When he addressed the staff Wednesday afternoon, Baquet received a minute-long round of applause from employees, the Times report said.

That was where the print version ended. The digital version I found online continued with this:

“He’d remember a conversation you had with him six months earlier,” said a newsroom employee who spoke anonymously because he wasn’t authorized speak publicly about internal matters. “He’s personable, charming.”

Citing “the confidence and support” Baquet receives from his colleagues, Sulzberger said in the company’s statement that “there is no journalist in our newsroom or elsewhere better qualified to take on the responsibilities of executive editor at this time than Dean Baquet.”

Baquet has had run-ins with Abramson, though it remains unclear if their relationship may have influenced Sulzberger’s decision.Citing people in the company briefed on the situation, The Times reported Wednesday that Abramson sought to hire Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian’s U.S. operation and its global website, and name her co-managing editor alongside Baquet. The move angered Baquet and the tension was brought to the attention of Sulzberger.

Gibson confirmed to the Guardian that Abramson tried to hire her: “The New York Times talked to me about the role of joint managing editor, but I said no.”

Politico also reported that Abramson and Baquet once engaged in an argument that drove Baquet to slam his hand against a wall and storm out of the newsroom. “In recent months, Abramson has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom,” said the story, written in April 2013 by Politico media reporter Dylan Byers. “More than a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff, all of whom spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, described her as stubborn and condescending, saying they found her difficult to work with.” The story was widely derided at the time as sexist.

The sudden masthead changes also may be driven by shifting priorities in the fast-changing newsroom, where digital strategizing can be overwhelmed by the daily demands of story production.

Last week, the company released an internal memo, following a 6-month review of its digital strategy, that called for more urgency in the implementation of its digital goals. Among them was a recommendation to create newsroom teams that tracked audience development and formed new strategies, as well a call to prioritize digital hiring.

“The report concludes that the masthead needs to make further structural changes in the newsroom to achieve a digital-first reality,” Abramson and Baquet wrote last week in a memo.

Sulzberger noted on Wednesday that Baquet was “closely involved” with the team that produced the memo.

Whatever precipitated her departure, Abramson doesn’t have “any journalistic apologies to make,” says Alex Jones, a former Times reporter who teaches media and public policy at Harvard University and is co-author of The Trust: The Private And Powerful Family Behind The New York Times.

“She was the head of the newsroom at a difficult time,” he said. “I worked for several top editors (at the Times). Every single one of them is pushy and demanding. I don’t think she is any more difficult than others. I think, overall, that just goes with the territory. It’s a demanding, high-standards place.”

Nowhere – NOWHERE – is her recent comment about the Obama regime mentioned. You know, the thing that ACTUALLY led to her ouster.

She delivered these remarks in a late-January interview. But that interview was given to al Jazeera, and of course nobody heard about it for a while. Until it was discovered and pointed out by Fox News late last week (which was how I heard about what Abramson said). That’s when the fascist wheels at the New York Slimes started grinding – and kept grinding until Abramson was out.

You can see the clues about how rushed this “ouster” – because let’s call it the “purge” that it clearly is – was:

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

The minute-long applause was for the purging of a woman who had dared speak the truth about Messiah Obama. You can only imagine how the doctrinaire liberals who make up the New York Times must have gnashed their teeth for two and a half months waiting for her to be forced out for her blasphemy of their god-king.

“Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

But that was shortly after the New York Times ran a series spouting how working women could and should ask for more damn money. Which means that the New York Times would be saying, “Women should ask for more money, so long as they don’t dare ask for it from US.”

Times Co. shares extended earlier losses today, falling 4.5 percent at the close. The stock, which more than doubled during Abramson’s tenure, is still down 71 percent from a 2002 peak.

So maybe she deserved to be paid as much as the MALE who held her job and took the paper downhill was paid. But to be a liberal is to be an abject hypocrite who calls upon other people and other people’s money to do what they themselves refuse to do.

The two quintessential ingredients of modern progressive liberalism – abject hypocrisy and rabid fascism – here go hand in hand: “Don’t do what WE do; do what we TELL you to do.”

I leave it up to you. You can choose which meme you like: The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the liberal progressive world, fired Jill Abramson because they are blatant hypocrites who don’t give a flying damn about women’s equality. Or The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the progressive world, are blatant fascists who fired Jill Abramson because they can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever.

Of course, if you’ve been following me so far, you know I take the latter position (to the extent that I don’t point out liberals are BOTH of the above). I submit that while Jill Abramson may have been an uppity woman whom the creators of liberals’ “war on women” hypocritically resented for wanting what liberals deceitfully claim they believe women ought to have; her real crime in their eyes was that she was an uppity woman who committed the unpardonable sin of speaking out against the fascism of the Obama regime.

What we’ve seen in both journalism and academia is a trend in which progressive liberals got their feet into the door, “progressively” and systematically began to hire more and ONLY liberals, and attained to a level of power in which they were able to dominate the agenda and shut down any and all opposition to their ideology. And then the purges. What worked well for Stalin works equally well for American progressive liberals.

The homosexual movement is a microcosm of the above. Homosexuals – citing the American tradition and the constitutional freedom of speech – demanded a voice. And Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents alike shrugged their shoulders and agreed that, yes, everybody deserves the right to speak freely and represent their cause or their view. But the moment they were allowed in the door, they began to slam it shut on everyone who disagree with THEM.

In other words, the “free speech” crap was merely that, rhetorical jiu-jitsu by fascists as a ploy to get as much as they could before seizing the rest.

It’s really no different from Hitler – who got to power largely by the homosexual movement in pre-WWII Germany. Hitler was quite willing to talk his way to power until he had garnered all the power he could by talking and it was time to seize complete power and then crush and exterminate his rivals (sadly for homosexuals, they ironically ended up on the wrong side of his subsequent purges).

A letter sent last year to Solis by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates allegations of administrative violations of fundraising rules by federal officials, said it began an inquiry after receiving a complaint that Solis had solicited a donation from a Labor Department employee. According to the letter, the complaint alleged that in March 2012, Solis “left a voicemail message on a subordinate employee’s government-issued Blackberry in which you asked the employee to contribute toward and assist with organizing others to attend a fundraiser for the President’s reelection campaign.”

Solis has declined to comment on the investigation, but a spokesman reiterated Friday that she believes she has done nothing wrong.

The January 2013 letter, which was reviewed by The Times, noted that Solis had resigned from her federal position earlier that month. As a result, the office said it was closing its inquiry into possible violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities by federal workers and imposes administrative penalties. The letter said the administrative inquiry could be reopened if Solis takes an executive branch job in the federal government.

Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

Republicans argue that the Internal Revenue Servicet come clean about the full extent of its targeting, which swept up dozens of conservative groups.

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

The quintessential fascism that is the heart of the left is emerging in every area and every arena across the board. If you are a liberal, YOU ARE A FASCIST. I’ve been pointing out – literally for years now – that “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” there is absolutely NO QUESTION that it would be the progressive left. To wit: the Democrat Party today is the Nazi Party in everything BUT name. And if liberals were anything other than completely dishonest, they would call themselves what they truly are.

It is amazing to watch in these days shortly before the Antichrist prophesied by the Bible comes to a worshiping world the self-righteous left that praises itself for “tolerance” when they define “tolerance” as: thinking and acting as we say or else we’ll destroy you.